ORDER J.N. Takru, J. - Dharam Pal has filed this revision against his conviction and sentence of six months' R.I. u/s 411 IPC. 2. For the purpose of this revision the following facts may be taken as finally proved: (1) that on 20-9-1964, PW 2 Nathhu Ram after pouching his field tied his two bullocks with a string round their necks and left them to go home. (2) that sometime thereafter he also left for his house and enroute met the Applicant who stopped him and talked with him for about 20 or 25 minutes, (3) that when PW 2 Nathhu Ram reached home he did not find his bullocks there, (4) that on 1-10-1965 one Banney, met PW 2 Nathhu Ram and told him that if he would pay him Rs. 100/- he would trace out his bullocks, (5) that PW 2 Nathhu Ram agreed to pay Rs. 50/- only and on Banney agreeing, he (PW 2) borrowed that sum from one Purshottam and gave it to Banney, and (6) that at 4 a.m. on 9-10-1965, Banney took PW 2 Nathhu Ram to the canal culvert and on reaching there be called the Applicant and the latter came out of a Bajra field with the bullocks and gave them to PW 2 Nathhu Ram. On these findings the learned Magistrate convicted and sentenced Banney u/s 215 IPC and the Applicant u/s 379 IPC. Both the convicted persons appealed to the learned Sessions Judge. The latter upheld the conviction of Banney but reduced the sentence. We are not concerned in this revision with Banney. So far as the Applicant is concerned, his conviction was altered on appeal from one u/s 379 IPC to one u/s 411 IPC and the sentence was reduced from one year's R.I. to six months' Rule I. Hence this revision. 3. On behalf of the Applicant his learned Counsel Sri P.N. Misra contended that as there was no evidence, direct or circumstantial, to prove that the bullocks were stolen, the Applicant could not be convicted u/s 411 IPC. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I am satisfied that this contention is well-founded. 4. Now from the findings recorded above-, it is clear that there is no direct evidence of stealing and the case for the prosecution in that regard rests entirely upon circumstantial evidence. After hearing the learned Counsel for the parties, I am satisfied that this contention is well-founded. 4. Now from the findings recorded above-, it is clear that there is no direct evidence of stealing and the case for the prosecution in that regard rests entirely upon circumstantial evidence. One of the rules of circumstantial evidence is that the prosecution evidence must be compatible with no other hypothesis except the one which the prosecution seeks to propound. In the present case, however, since the possibility of the bullocks having gone astray of themselves while the Applicant was talking with PW 2 Nathhu Ram, cannot be ruled out with absolute certainty, the prosecution cannot be held to have discharged the onus which the law places upon it. Accordingly, in the absence of any other evidence to that effect, it is not possible to hold that the Applicant must have known that the two bullocks which Banney asked him to produce and give to PW 2 Nathhu Ram were stolen property. Unless the factum of theft is established by direct or circumstantial evidence the mere possession of the bullocks by the Applicant would not necessarily prove that he was in possession of stolen property. Illustration (g) to Section 378 IPC is apt in this connection. According to that illustration if a person comes across property not in the possession of any person and he takes it, he does not commit theft, though he commits criminal misappropriation of property. Hence the Applicant, merely by reason of his possession of PW 2 Nathhu Ram's bullocks, cannot be held guilty of theft or being a receiver of stolen property though he might be guilty of criminal misappropriation of the latter's property. I am supported in this view by the decision of this Court in Munshi Khan v. State Cr. Revision No. 1230 of 1955, decided on 11-4-55. 5. The learned Counsel for the State, then prayed that the conviction of the Applicant might be altered from one u/s 411 IPC to one u/s 406 IPC. This contention cannot be accepted either, as the two offences, not being cognate or allied offences, the conviction under one cannot be altered to conviction under the other. 6. The result, therefore, is that the conviction and sentence of the Applicant are set aside and his revision is allowed. The Applicant was granted bail for the pendency of his revision. This contention cannot be accepted either, as the two offences, not being cognate or allied offences, the conviction under one cannot be altered to conviction under the other. 6. The result, therefore, is that the conviction and sentence of the Applicant are set aside and his revision is allowed. The Applicant was granted bail for the pendency of his revision. He need not surrender and his bail bonds are hereby discharged.